Markos informs us that the AP
is reporting that Sen. Byron Dorgan could be caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal.
New evidence is emerging that the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Jack Abramoff got political money arranged by the lobbyist back in 2002 shortly after the lawmaker took action favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients.
Hmm. New evidence. EVIDENCE! Yikes!
But hey, what's with the passive voice construction, Mr. Journalist, sir? Didn't your English teacher tell you that was a no-no?
"New evidence is emerging?"
How? From whom? For what reason?
Well, we know there's an FBI investigation of Abramoff ongoing, so that's where the evidence came from, right?
Wrong.
Next line of the story:
A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians told The Associated Press that Abramoff instructed the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron Dorgan's political group just three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a tribal school program Abramoff's clients wanted to use.
Oh, so that's where the evidence came from. A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushattas. He didn't tell the FBI, though. He told the AP. I wonder why he would do that? And who is this lawyer for the Coushattas?
Well, the story tells us his name is Jimmy Faircloth, Jr. -- although they also misidentify him as Jimmy Fairchild in the same article.
And who's Jimmy Faircloth? (And why doesn't this page list his $2000 contribution to Bobby Jindal?)
Jimmy Faircloth is a Republican lobbyist. Why is he giving "new evidence" about Byron Dorgan? And why is he giving it to the Associated Press? And why is it being portrayed as evidence of actual wrongdoing? And why are we playing along?
The plain fact is that the activities that have created a scandal around Jack Abramoff are clearly illegal. He'd overcharge his tribal clients for lobbying, then make them rent his skyboxes from him in order to hold fundraisers for favored Republican lawmakers, and then have them "forget" to charge those lawmakers' campaigns for the expenses, as required by federal campaign finance law, all the while taking "kickbacks" from the tribes for the "rent."
By contrast, Dorgan is accused of accepting a campaign contribution from an Indian tribe who benefitted from something he'd already done, and which benefitted the substantial tribal population in his home state.
And why does Faircloth's "accusation" stand up to initial scrutiny? Precisely because the donation was above-board and legal, and can be verified by looking at the campaign finance reports Dorgan filed with the FEC. The same cannot be said for the "contributions" Abramoff's clients made to Republican legislators like Bob Ney. Why not? Because they weren't reported. Why not? Because they were part of an illegal scheme to funnel gambling slush funds to GOP coffers.
So, does Dorgan now need to return the contributions of any Indian tribe represented by Abramoff? Indeed, is any poltical contribution from any tribe so represented now radioactive? Are the tribes now to be shunned, and their political voice silenced because they were represented by a corrupt GOP lobbyist, as Tom DeLay's infamous "K Street Project" demanded? Is that the method by which we'll deal with illegality by Republicans for Republicans? Refuse the traditionally Democratic tribal populations a voice in the politics of our party?
This is a great day for the GOP. Not only are Democrats on the defensive for appearing to be doing what "everyone else does," but a strong Democratic constituency in the key Western regions -- one traditionally without power or influence but suddenly flush with cash -- now has to sit on the sidelines and shut up, lest Democrats be forced into self-flagellation in another fit of liberal guilt.
Let corruption be rooted out wherever it lurks. But let's beware of partisan "tipsters," shall we?
[UPDATE:] I jumped the gun in assuming that we'd find that alleged contribution in the FEC reports. I can't find it anywhere. The Bismark Tribune says:
According to the AP, the Louisiana Coushattas' check ledger shows the tribe on March 6, 2002, wrote checks for $5,000 to Dorgan's political group, called the Great Plains Leadership Fund, and $25,000 to Burns. That money ultimately landed in Burns' Friends of the Big Sky political group, the AP reported.
So either Dorgan didn't report a $5,000 donation -- a perfectly legal amount allegedly directed by a not-yet-toxic Abramoff -- or I'm not looking in the right place (can
you find it?), OR the evidence is even more suspect than first believed. In fact, the only evidence that this check exists, at the moment, is Faircloth's own perusal of the tribe's old check ledgers.
While you're out searching, can anyone find the tribe's PAC registration? Or a law under which a $25,000 donation to Burns' PAC is permissible?